4. In support of her version complainant Poonam Gill produced into evidence affidavits and documents Ex.C1 to C8.<br /> 5. Opposite parties produced into evidence affidavit and documents Ex.R1 to R23.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently urged before us that complainant is consumer under Section 2(i) (d) of the C.P. Act 1986 as she was running STD/PCO for earning her livelihood by way of self-employment and that her version in affidavit dully supported by Baldev Singh vide affidavit Ex.C8 has not been rebutted. He further urged that evidence of the opposite parties beyond the pleadings cannot be taken into consideration. There is only one memo No.1972 Ex.R19 but the same was never delivered to the complainant. He further urged that there is brazen violation of Regulation No. 71.1.1 of the Sales Regulation of the Board regarding removal of the faulty meter and procedure for depositing of the same in the ME Lab in the presence of the complainnt or his representative nor even the ME Lab report was got checked nor it has been adduced in evidence. No consent was ever given by the complainant for checking of faulty meter in the ME Lab in her absence. Therefore mere allegation for show cause notice is only proof and the opposit party Board is not justified in claiming amount of impunged bills on the basis of average consumption on the sheer plea of meter being dead stop without its convincing proof. Reference has also been made to case reported as 2005 (1) CLT 468 and another case reported as 2005 (1) CLT 641 and case reported as 1997 (2) CLT 40. On the other hand it has been counter-argued by learned counsel for the opposite parties that complainant failed consistently to pay the electricity bills dated 7/3/2006 for Rs.1483/- Ex.R20 and second bill Ex.C5 dated 9/5/06 for Rs.9417/- and third bill dated 8/7/06 for Rs.18777/- for consumption of 1963 units and total bill was for Rs. 19616/- vide Ex.C4 though MCO No.187/63066 with final reading of 3990 was effected on 10/6/06 as a result of dead stop meter being found on the finding of ME Lab report on the basis of average consumption , amount of Rs.20610/- was levied vide bill Ex.C2 dated 8/9/06 and last bill Ex.C3 for Rs.21690/- dated 10/11/2006 in accordance with the procedure as envisaged in the Sales Regulations.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. We find merit partly in the contention of learned counsel for the complainant. These broad facts are not disputed that complainant applied for commercial electric connection vide her application Ex.R1 dated 22/8/2005 with the opposite parties alongwith relevant documents i.e. affidavit Ex.R2 and Wiring Contractor test report Ex.R3. We also find that complainant ha not been able to produce even an iota of evidence that she has been she has been depositing electricity bills regularly uptill bill of July 3006 for recovery of arrears of Rs.19616/- vide Ex.C4. No doubt complainant later on deposited one third of third bill of Rs.19616/- i.e.amount of Rs.6538/- to restrain disconnection in compliance with the order of this Forum dated 25/1/2007. Complainant stated in para-4 of the complaint that she moved an application dated 29/5/06 to the opposite parties for replacement of electric meter bearing No.1876568 alleged to be defective and not recording correct consumption of electricity and this fact was admitted to this extent in para-4 of the written statement by the opposite parties that meter was changed on 10/6/06 vide MCO No.187/65066 with final reading 1990 and new meter was installed with initial reading 00019 and the computer prepared the bill dated 8/9/06 with 'F' code for amount of Rs.20701/- for average consumption Ex.C2 which included arrears of previous bill dated 25/7/06 of Rs.19616/-. Therefore, opposite party Board has tried to justify recovery of bills Ex.C2 and C3 dated 10/11/06 and 8/9/06 on account of the meter being declared as dead stop and defective. Apart from the arrears of Rs.19616/- as reflected in bill Ex.C4 prior to the effecting of MCO. We have gone through these bills and also in para-5 of the affidavit Ex.R5 of SDO Ajit Pal Singh to this effect for replacement of meter firstly on 10/6/06 and second time on 9/10/06 and checking of the same in ME Lab on 10/11/06 indicating the meter as dead stop and also report of the meter reader dated 14/8/06 again found said meter to be dead stop. He denied that defective meters were installed but meters became dead stop by misdeeds of the complainant herself and the bills were sent as per consumption of electricity by the complainant.. The affidavit of Sat Pal JE Ex.R6 has also been produced about the effecting of MCO and depositing of the meters in the ME Lab in the presence of complainant on 9/6/06 and checking of the meter in the ME Lab in the presence of brother of the complainant. Opposite party has also filed documents Ex.R7, R11 to R15 alongwith letter Ex.R19 containing admission of th complainant of meter being dead stop and recovery of amount ofRs.21781/-. There is another affidavit of Gurmit Singh Minhas SDO ME Lab Jalandhar Ex.R21 containing observations about dead stop meter and at Sr. No.3538 Ex.R22 and R23. However, opposite party failed to establish beyond non controvertial bill of Rs.19616/- Ex.C4 and earlier bills aftermath compliance with mandatory procedure as laid down in Regulation <br /> No. 71.1.1 of the Sales Regulations which clearly mandates that :<br /> "Whenever a complaint regarding the faulty<br /> behaviour of an energy meter is recorded.<br /> Meter Inspector or JE should be asked to visit<br /> the premises and test meter of the site with <br /> the help of step watch. Meter should be <br /> immediately replaced if complaint was found to <br /> to correct. If any loss thereof is suspected, the <br /> dismantled meter should be got tested from M.E. Lab<br /> and Account of the consumer be overhauled <br /> and full details of extra amount assessed <br /> should be intimated as separate bill.<br /> If accuracy of the meter is doubted by the consumer, the same shall be got tested in the M.E. Lab after payment of necessary charges as per Regulation No. 71.2.1"<br /> Further vide regulation No. 71.2.2<br /> "Meter should be sent to M.E. Lab within 15 days<br /> from its removal and result should be intimated <br /> in 7 days from the receipt of the meter."<br /> There is mandatory provision contained <br /> in Sales Regulation No. 64.5.1 and 64.6<br /> and 64.7 that:-<br /> "After charging meter change fee, all the meters <br /> removed against MCO shall be first checked by <br /> concerned JE and the same shall be sent in <br /> sealed card board box and duly signed by <br /> concerned JE and representative of the <br /> consumer/consumer and further its testing<br /> would be done in the presence of the <br /> consumer or his representative. In case <br /> consumer refuses to sign meter test <br /> results/report, such meters shall be kept<br /> sealed in the Operation Sub Division till<br /> final disposal of the case."<br /> The above documents of the opposite parties when viewed in the light of these instructions contained in the Sales Regulations cited above clearly highlight the breach thereof on the part of opposite parties. In so far as recovery of the amount on average consumption basis as a result of the alleged ME Lab report beyond the recovery of the amount of Rs.19616/- uptill bill of July 2006 Ex. C4 is concerned, it has already been observed that complainant has not been able to prove payment of electricity bills prior to July 2006 except deposit of one thid amount of Rs.19616/- of third bill i.e. Rs.6538/- by the complainant in compliance with the order of this Forum dated 25/1/2007. Therefore, opposite party Board is justified to recover amount of this bill i.e. Rs.19616/-. There was no justification for the opposite party Board to recover the amount on average basis consumption in the bills Ex.C2 and C3. <br /> 9. We find plea of complainant tenable about her being consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as her version about earning her livelihood by running PCO by means of self-employment was not rebutted by the opposite parties with any cogent and convincing evidence.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion we partly accept this complaint by quashing the bills Ex.C2 and C3 issued on average basis beyond amount of Rs.19616/- and out of which complainant has already paid one third amount i.e. Rs.6538/-. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. <br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Sudha Sharma ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 13.11.2007 Membeer President.<br />